30 ms·

Ok, lot of stuff to unpack here, but I'll stick to just pointing out obvious misinfo, which is often repeated: Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questio

by tovej 6mo ago

Ok, lot of stuff to unpack here, but I'll stick to just pointing out obvious misinfo, which is often repeated: Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities. Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the Khmer rouge. This is very old propaganda.

troad 6mo ago
I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear. Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in Ukraine / the extent to which the US may have "provoked" the Khmer Rouge to do what it did. If someone wrote equivalent things about the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we would not be mincing words about that person's sympathies. Chomsky ought to be treated with the same intellectual honesty. Chomsky was a useful idiot for murderous tyrants. And a truly wonderful linguist. Ah, the duality of man.
- tovej 6mo ago
  Oh, Chomsky is by no means perfect. He's an Epstein associate. But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one. But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is. Show me the smoking gun, please.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - troad 6mo ago
    Only on the Internet would someone so bombastically demand you do their homework for them. :) Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven. For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :) Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
    - tovej 6mo ago
      You are the one making a positive claim that Chomsky has done something. I can't prove the negative, therefore the burden of proof is on you. "The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" If by "factually deficient" you mean false, then that is the definition of misinformation. Which is of course separate from disinformation, which is when you do that purposefully.
      - troad 6mo ago
        On the contrary, if you wish to learn about Chomsky's views towards the Khmer Rouge, the onus is entirely on you to investigate Chomsky's work. Failing that you're entirely at the mercy of intermediated secondary sources of indeterminate levels of trustworthiness, including myself. Considering the nuanced nature of the claim - a conclusion as to his sympathies borne of deep familiarly with his work - there's no reason for me to think you wouldn't find additional reasons to quibble over any specific citations and passages. I have no evidence that you're a good faith interlocutor, so I really see no reason to expend that effort. If you're actually interested, I do encourage you to read the original works. (If it wakes you up to Chomsky's sympathies and immunises you against some of his bad politics, perhaps not a total waste of time.)

by tovej 6mo ago

troad 6mo ago

I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear. Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in Ukraine / the extent to which the US may have "provoked" the Khmer Rouge to do what it did. If someone wrote equivalent things about the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we would not be mincing words about that person's sympathies. Chomsky ought to be treated with the same intellectual honesty. Chomsky was a useful idiot for murderous tyrants. And a truly wonderful linguist. Ah, the duality of man.

tovej 6mo ago
Oh, Chomsky is by no means perfect. He's an Epstein associate. But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one. But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is. Show me the smoking gun, please.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- troad 6mo ago
  Only on the Internet would someone so bombastically demand you do their homework for them. :) Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven. For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :) Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
  - tovej 6mo ago
    You are the one making a positive claim that Chomsky has done something. I can't prove the negative, therefore the burden of proof is on you. "The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" If by "factually deficient" you mean false, then that is the definition of misinformation. Which is of course separate from disinformation, which is when you do that purposefully.
    - troad 6mo ago
      On the contrary, if you wish to learn about Chomsky's views towards the Khmer Rouge, the onus is entirely on you to investigate Chomsky's work. Failing that you're entirely at the mercy of intermediated secondary sources of indeterminate levels of trustworthiness, including myself. Considering the nuanced nature of the claim - a conclusion as to his sympathies borne of deep familiarly with his work - there's no reason for me to think you wouldn't find additional reasons to quibble over any specific citations and passages. I have no evidence that you're a good faith interlocutor, so I really see no reason to expend that effort. If you're actually interested, I do encourage you to read the original works. (If it wakes you up to Chomsky's sympathies and immunises you against some of his bad politics, perhaps not a total waste of time.)